3 ms·
If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could so
by ipaddr 4y ago
If you are looking for scientists in the field that tells us you are not in the field. But then you tell us you judged major procedural mistakes. How could someone who knows nothing about the field be an expert in procedural techniques in this field? Something tells me you are part of a group who feels threatened by these findings.
- theCrowing 4y agoThe process of writing scientific papers is mostly the same no matter the subject. The biggest flag was probably that he stated that he is 99,9% sure in interviews but the number never shows in the paper and in the conclusion part he just states "more likely". You don't need a bioengineering degree that something like that throws a red flag.
- reitanqild 4y agoSo you didn't find a red flag in the scientific paper but in something that was said in one interview?
- theCrowing 4y agoHe also stated it as fact in the shortform result (without the 99,9% number) contracdicting his own conclusion in the conclusion section. Sometimes providing information that has a clear correlation with the source material shows you that most people in this thread are trying to argue without reading the paper itself... helps sieving out if people are commenting in good faith or not.